As further sign of how previous arguments for redefining marriage have fallen flat, a left-leaning group that claims to be centrist is trying to circulate a new set of talking points to members of Congress hoping to coach and coax them into coming out in favor of same-sex marriage:
Third Way, an influential centrist Democratic group, on Thursday provided a new memo to all House and Senate lawmakers' offices that gives advice on how to change positions on the issue without being called a dreaded "flip-flopper." It outlines three rules that will help ensure a smoother transition in support of marriage equality: share a personal story about the people in your life who have influenced your position, emphasize that marriage is about a commitment instead of rights, and allow that other people's views may be "changing at a slower pace" but that they, too, could come around soon. -- The Huffington Post
The last two tips in the document [PDF] we find revealing:
Don’t say “gay marriage” or even “same-sex marriage.” These terms can reinforce the notion that gay couples are seeking a different kind of marriage, rather than simply trying to join the tradition that is already a fundamental building block of our society. Terms like “marriage for gay couples,” “allowing gay couples to marry,” or giving gay couples “the freedom to marry” are all good options—and all avoid using an adjective modifying the word marriage.
Exercise caution in explicitly comparing marriage and our country’s journey on this issue to the civil rights movement, or saying that not allowing gay couples to marry is comparable to anti-miscegenation laws. This direct comparison can hurt more than it helps, by causing people to think about the differences between the experiences of African Americans and LGBT people, not the similarities.
31 Comments
Go ahead. There are still a number of blue dog democrats in the house and senate and should this move to the far left take place, you will have effectively strengthened the conservative majority in congress. Even the very liberal Senator Harry Reid opposes same-sex marriage.
So by all means, go ahead.
Once again the tactics are designed to evade the actual disagreement and depend on brazen falsehoods.
This coarsens the public discourse even as it is politically constructed to fence-in the liar and fence-out the seeker and the speaker of truths both moral and legal and political.
The corruptive influence of the SSM campaign seemingly knows no boundaries. This boundary flaunting in almost any other social context would be understood as hostile and socially pathological. This is not about resetting boundaries but rather destorying respect for boundaries.
Fencing-in and fencing-out serves a delusion of no real boundaries. As with personal boundaries this transgression is deliberate and invasive and unethical.
Orthodox communists and fascists percieve governmental authority in just the way that this group's tactical advice assumes to be effective. Create and elevate a half-truth and use it to push the emotional buttons that would then turn moral intuition against the moral truth that they had split in half. Why would SSMers advise that dishonest approach if their cause was a just cause?
Sadly the SSM campaign depnds on unjust means to press for an unjust end. This points to the failure of SSMers to reason correctly and to distort emotion. Human history entails many lessons, very hard lessons, that ought to help guard us against this subterfuge.
-- Chairm Ohn
The term "Same-Sex Marriage" is like the term, "Women's Men's Room."
I think it's interesting that both sides of the issue find the term "Same-sex marriage" to be a problem. Our side, because it suggests that there are different kinds of marriage; their side because it calls attention to the fact that they are trying to change marriage.
I feel compelled to repeat that our approach to this should be very matter of fact, based in common sense: Marriage IS the union of a man and a woman. To suggest anything else is silly.
A man has been a man and a woman has been a woman throughout all of history. We know the difference between man and woman. How would we react to someone who said that we should re-define the word "man" to mean both man and woman in the name of equality? And the word "son" to mean "son or daughter." No more aunts and uncles, no more moms and dads, just "parents." We'd say, "That's ridiculous!"
And yet, that's what some radical people are trying to do to marriage. They want to change marriage, turn it into something different because they don't like it the way it is. Because it calls special attention to the fact that only a man and a woman can create a baby. Because it recognizes that men and women are complementary beings and that same-sex couples are not.
Words have meanings. A woman cannot be a man. A daughter cannot be a son. A same-sex couple cannot be a marriage. These are facts, not opinions. To suggest otherwise defies common sense and thousands of years of accepted universal understanding.
Heaven forbid they should acknowledge or admit that anyone who self-identifies as "gay" is already allowed by law to get married.
Third Way is just trying to manipulate legislators by giving them a false sense of security that they can flip-flop with impunity. Third Way doesn't care one whit what happens to these legislators once they win them over.
I don't think voters are going to buy this propaganda, and I don't think flip-flopping legislators are going to be safe from the consequences of their actions.
Here's a better idea: don't betray your constituents.
Daughter of Eve:
That form of intellectually dishonest argument was dismissed in Loving almost 50 years ago. That case aside, it is pointless and senseless.
Gregory,
Your source please!
I have read Loving v. in its entirety and have seen nothing close to even implying what you suggest. More importantly; you have yet to address Loving vs "...our very existence and survival is dependent upon it" statement that clearly defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman; being that no rational human being would ever contend that our "very existence and survival" will ever be dependent upon two same gendered partners rubbing their reproductive organs against each other.
Talk about your intellectual dishonesty...
@Greogry -
Loving involved the creation of a requirement in marriage wherein both partners had to be of the same race. This prohibited men and women from marrying.
Unlike in Loving where there was a racial requirement for marriage, there is no sexual orientation requirement for marriage. Homosexuals are free to get married as much as heterosexual people are. And, like heterosexuals, homosexuals can serve the purpose of marriage by procreating and taking responsibility for the offspring they create. The choose not to.
Frankly, I think part of the reason that States promote marriage is that it encourages would-be homosexuals to adopt a heterosexual lifestyle and contribute to the stability and growth of society through traditional families. Homosexuality is, generally, an unstable and often dangerous lifestyle.
Resist:
First, you might try educating yourself about sexual orientation. Then you would know that you are perpetuating falsehoods about homosexuality. Which, by the way, is not a "lifestyle."
& to DoE as well:
Assuming you are strongly heterosexual, you get to marry the consenting adult that you love. In most states, we do not. Where we can, thanks to the federal DOMA, we cannot get the same rights that you have if you are married.
Re: the whole "let them marry a person of the opposite sex" theme: would you really want one of your children to be married to someone who is incapable of loving him or her as (hopefully) you do your spouse?
Are they finally dropping the arguement that this is an issue of civil rights? No, they are just trying to make the package a little prettier so more people will want to open it. The premise remains the same. They want to redefine marriage. We must not let them get away with sugar coating the issue. It's funny how arguements for same sex marriage keep changing as proponents find they are not working, but arguements against same sex marriage have remained pretty much the same.
I am sorry to say.
But I think that it is wrong to try to define marriage as, (or put so much importance on the idea that it is) the purpose of attaching parents and children to each other. For it becomes understandable that same-sex couples (and the legal system) would say, “well if that is what marriage is, than that is what I want. Because I want children, and I want my children and I to be attached to each other as much as possible (as any adoptive parent etc.). And if marriage is attaching parents and children together than of course I should have the right like anyone else to marriage.
The definition of marriage in NOT first and foremost found in its purpose. The word marriage first and foremost names a thing. That thing simply is a woman and a man coming together to become one unit for life.
A car is first and foremost a thing. That its purpose is to get from one place to another is of course part of being a car. But if the purpose took the precedent in its definition than an airplane, or a boat could argue for the right to be called a car...
If a man and man or woman and woman wants to come together for life, so be it. But it is not a marriage. The society should find a name for it rather then confusing things.
So there are two fights taking place here. One for the possibility of same-sex couples to have children as they please. And a completely different one of the opposite-sex couple having the right to name with a unique word to its union.
These two fights have been mixed into one.
And we are trying to fight a war on two fronts. We are not in a good position.
I think we need to regroup and fine our priorities.
First – to have a clear name and definition of the man-woman life long union.
If we want that word to continue to be 'marriage', than we better get a clear definition out there and fast. And it should clearly start with, “the union of a man and a woman”. I think it would be helpful to remember that marriage is not first purpose, it is first a thing. This will also help in understanding why a man and a woman without children can be married.
@Sheryl - I'm your worst nightmare. I'm a former homosexual. I've witnessed the lifestyle first-hand, and I rejected it.
.Also, Sheryl, I want my kids to be happy.
There's an old saying amongst women that it's as easy to love a rich man as a poor one; which means, essentially, that we control who we love, and we might as well consider the practical as well as the emotional in deciding who we spend our lives with. And, indeed, we marry not because we love; we marry and in so doing PROMISE to love.
From a practical standpoint, I've lived both sides of the sexual orientation coin, if you will. I've learned that I love whom I want to love, and that given the choice of an empty, childless life with someone of the same-sex whom I've lusted over versus a full life of family and children that I've created with my wife in a selfless, giving, loving relationship, the latter is a far better way to go through life.
People find themselves in bad relationships sometimes; oftentimes they don't realize that they're bad relationships and many times they recognize they're bad, but they are unable to pull themselves out of them. People who find themselves in homosexual relationships don't realize that they're bad; oftentimes its because they've been led to believe that they have no other choice in life or that another choice would make them unhappy. Part of that these days is driven by homosexual activists who condemn them for questioning their homosexual urges. All homosexuals can choose marriage; many have been led astray.
But you don't need to have experienced homosexuality to know what's best for your kids, what will make them happy. Anyone who has a successful marriage knows that a traditional family with kids is a blessing. And knows that the promise to love is much stronger than the self-absorbed love or the lust that first draws us together. Sometimes you have to dump the person that you "love" because it's not a good thing for you, be it that the person is e.g., abusive or e.g,, someone of the same sex who is unable to allow you to realize your full potential as a human being.
Good News - I'm sorry to disagree with you, but you can't argue that marriage is the union of a man and a woman without explanation; because without explanation, then the argument to not redefine marriage is based solely on tradition, a weak legal basis. It has always been that way is an unpersuasive argument.
Your car analogy actually hurts your point. There are train "cars," roller coaster "cars," mining "cars," all with the purpose of transporting things on land. If you transport on water or air, you change the purpose, you have a different name, i.e., boat, plane.
You miss the point about children. Maybe this will help: Marriage is about uniting children with the male and female who created them. That serves an important purpose by assuring that people who have sex, take responsibility for the outcome: children. It also serves the important purpose of keeping children and single moms out of poverty: it's important for dads to stay around and participate in the support and stability of the family.
Yes, people adopt children, but that is a different matter. Adoption is about bringing strangers together with other peoples' children. Marriage is about avoiding adoption, about avoiding children being separated from their parents. Homosexual couples do not create children; therefore they can never serve the important state/societal purpose of uniting children to the people who created them.
Indeed, by granting homosexual adoptions, we actually encourage the orphaning of children by providing a sort of "safety net;" or worse, by allowing artificial methods of creating children with the intention of stripping them from one or both parents.
Sex between men and women is the way that children are created. Sex between homosexual couples never creates children. That is the reason why we distinguish such couples through marriage. Male-female is a very special, very powerful combination that male-male, female-female are not and can never be.
The aversion to the terms Gay Marriage and Same Sex Marriage shows just how important definitions are. We need to get the term Genderless Marriage into common parlance.
Those posts were so great and beautifull ResistSSA. I am happy for you and enjoyed reading about your testimony.
You left out the best part though. Thanks to your foresight your children are better off. They now have a loving father along with a mother. Just think of what you have given to your children that the homosexual couples can never give.
Thank you from the bottom of my heart for sharing your story.
Resist:
If you have had satisfying sexual relations with both men & women, you are bisexual, not homosexual in orientation. And just as a person in any monogamous relationship forgoes having sex with anyone other than his/her partner, choosing to no longer have sex with men doesn't mean you've changed your orientation.
If you think you have, you're your own worst enemy.
Sheryl, what extremists fail to understand is that same-sex friendships, while nice, can never be marriages. Lets not get confused about the true purpose of marriage.
@Sheryl -
Have at it with assigning labels to me. They're irrelevant. The only sexual activity I have now is with my wife; the only sexual activity I contemplate is with my wife.
In any case, I am defined by being a husband and a father; much more noble traits to define oneself than by one's sexual orientation.
Thanks, John. I'm glad to know someone reads my posts; they do tend to be a little long. I'm passionate about this subject.
Ah, yes, my kids are lucky to have both their mom and dad. All kids should be so fortunate. All men should be as blessed as I am.
This is news? And how does this differ from United Families International making their "family guide" the number one handed our resource to countries on conservative family values? It is a step by step to rework UN verbiage on any issue to do with families. This is how the world works.
Are you saying FRC, CWA and NOM do not produce policy papers and distribute them? If you do not, you are missing the boat. But I am sure you already do.
Gregory said, "Daughter of Eve:
That form of intellectually dishonest argument was dismissed in Loving almost 50 years ago. That case aside, it is pointless and senseless."
Gregory, please feel free to produce current documentation which:
A) requires individuals to divulge their sexual orientation in order to receive a marriage license, such as a marriage application, and/or
B) a piece of legislation from any of our 50 states which specifically prohibits an individual from marriage, based on their sexual identity, specifically "gay."
Your arguments would carry more weight if they were accurate.
Sheryl said, "Assuming you are strongly heterosexual, you get to marry the consenting adult that you love. In most states, we do not."
That oversimplifies things. For example, if I "love" another consenting adult, but am already married, I cannot also marry my paramour. So, polyamorous groups could make the same argument you cite.
Furthermore, "consent" and "love" are not the sole eligibility requirements for marriage. By your definition, loving, consenting siblings should be allowed to marry, as should a parent and their adult consenting child.
The govt. doesn't regulate and license love, it regulates and licenses sex.
There is nothing to prohibit or prevent you from forming a life-long loving, committed relationship with the consenting adult individual of your choice; we simply don't categorize all loving relationships, even life-long ones, as "marriage."
The word "gay" to describe aberrant behavior is just plain wrong. The word homosexual needs always to be used as it describes the truth of what the relationship is.
And on that note Daughter of Eve,
In the comments on a previous post, you stated that if same sex couples are allowed to marry, then only age and concent would be required. Same sex siblings would also be able to marry.
Could you produce any documentation for that assertion? I wasn't aware of this and feel it is an important issue.
Well, at least they *finally* realize that comparisons to the real civil rights movement aren't effective, and cause people--especially Black people--to think about how abominable the comparisons are. I'm not sure what took them so long to figure this out.
Some of the opposition will not give up the comparison any time soon. In a recent video, I saw a Democratic adviser/analyst compare the Prop 8 situation to slavery while debating Ann Coulter.
But I believe when the opposition makes these egregious comparisons, it helps the pro-marriage side tremendously. Normal Americans can see that this situation does not resemble slavery in any remote way, and to say so makes for a grave insult to Black people, who will solidify their opposition at the voting booth.
Resist,
I hear you. I accept this messy, desperate and pathetic think-tank that we're all in. It is the very fact that we even need to try and define marriage that is crazy.
I only insist on saying 'marriage is man woman union'; to try and make clear that this is the only starting point of a much longer more detailed definition. Not man and woman = not marriage from the start.
Resist SSA, I read your posts often as well and share John Noe's sincere appreciation and gratitude. Your testimony is powerful and so well presented. I'm sure, like myself and John there are many others who read and are inspired to hope through your words.
I pray and suspect that more than a few people who identify themselves as homosexuals are moved by your comments as well (whether they choose to acknowledge it or not).
In our hearts, where Got lives, it is impossible to deny truth. Your words ring true in the heart.
Unlike those who support the "ssm" agenda, there is no need for you or anyone else who sees the beauty and truth in marriage to devolope a strategy to their discussion. The truth flows easily and needs no artifically structured format. Truth is easy to see and easy to speak in its most basic and simple state.
Thank you for your tireless efforts in a cause which is so important to our society, our children and the future of our Country. Please know that you are in my prayers. God Bless you!!
May I suggest?
Marriage: The joining of opposites
The compositions of same gendered pairings are incompatible with the original definition of marriage – changes started in 1997. All recent revisions are a result of the political push to desensitize the population and condition us to view these relationships as acceptable.
I don’t know about you folks, but a deeply resent being played by Big Brother.
Goodnews - I agree with you that it is crazy that these discussions need to take place. And I agree with your basic argument that marriage is what it is: the union of a man and a woman.
I worry that you arguments are t too hard for the average Joe to comprehend.
The fact is most people get the importance of moms and dads to kids, and they believe that marriage is the institution for creating families, notwithstanding their varying reasons for tying the knot.
What they don't get is how marriage as that special institution for parents raising their offspring is being threatened and how changing marriage to accommodate homosexuals will subject their children to forced homosexual indoctrination in public schools. That's where the arguments are needed.
Reformed said, "In the comments on a previous post, you stated that if same sex couples are allowed to marry, then only age and concent would be required. Same sex siblings would also be able to marry."
Did I? Perhaps you'd better read what I really said, to better understand what I really meant. If you don't understand the meaning of marriage, you'll never understand what I meant by what I really said.
@DoE:
"Your arguments would carry more weight if they were accurate."
They'd also carry more weight if you didn't ignore them completely and repeat what you said originally that the arguments you were "responding to" had refuted.
Also, I also remember the statements of yours that Reformed is referencing. That is exactly what you said. Easily refuted by the fact that brothers and sisters may not legally marry even where heterosexual marriages are legally recognized, but stated by you nonetheless.
It's true that nobody understands what you mean, but (A) that seems to include yourself, and (2) that's because it doesn't make any sense.
One Trackback
[...] more here: New Guide Seeks to Coach Members Of Congress on How to Come … This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged actually-encourage, allowing-gay, freedom, [...]